Prepare to fill your computer...

[SwissJon]

OK, It's starting to look realistic that the Nikon D800 is going to have 36MPx.. I just picked these pictures from NikonRumours.com





With a file size of roughly 100Mb per photo, you're going to be able to take about 160 photos on a 16Gb memory card. (Currently I get about 480 on my D7000) and a 500Gb Hard disk will contain about 5,000 images.. Not that many for a wedding photog, and one has to wonder how many frames per second (4 reported) the camera will manage, and how quickly you're going to run into buffer problems. And if you thought Lightroom and Photoshop were slow before....

In my opinion, Nikon have written a cheque that the techlology cannot yet write.. Just because you CAN do something like produce a 36MPix camera doesn't mean you should.

However, not to worry.. D700 have started to appear on the 2nd hand market at low prices.. I'll be getting one of those next month when I get my Xmas bonus

[OsmosisStudios]

Originally Posted by SwissJon

With a file size of roughly 100Mb per photo, you're going to be able to take about 160 photos on a 16Gb memory card.

Sorry Jon, you're reading that wrong. the "103.4" is not the size, in MB, of the image file. I have an image that says 134.9 but is only 34.7MB. That number is related to pixels, not filesize.

A RAW file will still likely be in the 32-40MB range, though.

[SwissJon]

Not me that's reading it wrong...

"The TIFF files produced by the Nikon D800 are around 103 MB:"

From the Nikon Rumours website here

I'm just the messenger

[autofocus]

if I were a betting man, I'd weigh in favor that this is just a rumor. Unless Nikon has a solution for the likelihood of more noise, huge files, and slower burst rates, why would anyone need a 36MP camera with those tradeoffs?...unless you plan on printing billboard sized images. Not to mention the demand it puts on your computer and memory cards. I'm sure most of us here are already shooting with ~12-20MP cameras and are already producing very acceptable high resolution enlargements. If the rumor is real, I'd think it's a mistake on Nikon's part to do this...just my 2 cents.

[Jim Poor]

Originally Posted by autofocus

if I were a betting man, I'd weigh in favor that this is just a rumor. Unless Nikon has a solution for the likelihood of more noise, huge files, and slower burst rates, why would anyone need a 36MP camera with those tradeoffs?...unless you plan on printing billboard sized images. Not to mention the demand it puts on your computer and memory cards. I'm sure most of us here are already shooting with ~12-20MP cameras and are already producing very acceptable high resolution enlargements. If the rumor is real, I'd think it's a mistake on Nikon's part to do this...just my 2 cents.

It would be a good studio camera or outdoor, good light portrait camera like the D3X.

That said, a rumor is just that until an actual product hits the shelves.

My 21MP camera creates 15-20MB RAW files. I don't think a 36MP camera would produce 100MB files...it'd me more in the 30-40 range.

But yeah, for most stuff, 36MP is overkill. Maybe it'll have the option to shoot reduced MP RAW files like my 5DII?

[SwissJon]

Originally Posted by Photoboothguy

My 21MP camera creates 15-20MB RAW files. I don't think a 36MP camera would produce 100MB files...it'd me more in the 30-40 range.

But yeah, for most stuff, 36MP is overkill. Maybe it'll have the option to shoot reduced MP RAW files like my 5DII?

According to the rumour, it can shoot in DX mode at (I guess) 24Mpx

[autofocus]

Originally Posted by Jim Poor

It would be a good studio camera or outdoor, good light portrait camera like the D3X.

That said, a rumor is just that until an actual product hits the shelves.

Jim, we shoot with a 12MP D300 in our portrait studio, (also outdoor portraits) and are easily producing high resolution 16x20 images...I wouldn't think we'd need a camera that was 3x what we currently have, especially if it had the potential of more noise. (which I am guessing it could have) However, if it were to have better dynamic range, that would be a real plus.

[Jim Poor]

Originally Posted by autofocus

Jim, we shoot with a 12MP D300 in our portrait studio, (also outdoor portraits) and are easily producing high resolution 16x20 images...I wouldn't think we'd need a camera that was 3x what we currently have, especially if it had the potential of more noise. (which I am guessing it could have) However, if it were to have better dynamic range, that would be a real plus.

Sure, I agree 100% (well, maybe 95%). Even the "lowly" D90 would make a fine studio camera and produce those mid-size prints. Start talking 40x60, and the game changes a little. The D300 is still well and plenty up to the task, but throw in a client request to "crop this one to a head shot" when it started out as full body or even a group . . .

Noise isn't an issue at low ISO, which is all we need in the studio.

Mind you, I'm not a fan of the MP race, but the D3X is "darn near" shooting medium format without the medium format price tag, and I figure (hope?) the D800 / D4 or whatever will be similar at even lower cost than the D3X.

Right now, I'm happily plugging along with my D3, D3S and D700 bodies.

[SwissJon]

Originally Posted by autofocus

Jim, we shoot with a 12MP D300 in our portrait studio, (also outdoor portraits) and are easily producing high resolution 16x20 images...I wouldn't think we'd need a camera that was 3x what we currently have, especially if it had the potential of more noise. (which I am guessing it could have) However, if it were to have better dynamic range, that would be a real plus.

Oh I don't know.. perhaps some foreign dictatorships NEED 36Mpx photos so they can put 20ft photos of themselves all over their countries... Nikon caters for all!